"D. Stephen Heersink" wrote:

>The Harvard Dictionary of Music define melody as "a coherent succession
>of pitches," where pitches are understood to be a "stretch of sound whose
>frequency is clear and stable enough to be heard as not noise; succession
>means that several pitches occur; coherent means that the succession of
>pitches in accepted as belonging together."
>
>Not being a musician, I found this definition quite acceptable, perhaps
>better than any idea I've come across thus far in this thread.  For the
>sake of argument, it might be appropriate to take the Harvard definition
>as normative, and then, attack its weaknesses or support its strengths.

Because it does not distinguish between:

"Melody" and "Theme"

"Melody" and "Random succession of pitches repeated often enough to be
remembered"

"Melody" and "Tune".

It also fails because one can, in fact, make a melody out of material which
would otherwise be understood to be "noise".

Definitions that fail on this many obvious counts, but have the advantage
of being clear, easily graspable by people who do not know what they are
talking about, and normative are called: platitudes.

Music has always been bedeviled by such "definitions" because they provide
a clear ability to misunderstand, and a clear basis for various new ideas
to be declared "unmelodic".  Similar definitions of melody were used to
declare Beethoven a poor melodist, and Berlioz to have no melody at all.

Further - such a definition sheds no light on the use of the word "melos"
in Wagner, nor in the sense of melody applied to non musical ideas.

Now, given the obvious problems with this definition - problems so clear
to the naked eye as to be embarassing to point out - why should I ahve to
accept it as "authorative" - can anyone with money to publish a book then
become an "authority" who must be debunked individually? This road lies
madness and foolishness.  Partially because a thousand debunks will lead
one no closer to the truth - and partially because any such definition is
likely to aquire adherents out of loyality - making the discussion yet
another social fight over whose authority is sufficently priveledged.

Stirling S Newberry